> "We aren't born anonymous. In the "state of nature," without government, we are in no way anonymous."
Using "natural states of being", however defined, to articulate rights in unnatural states of being (i.e. modern society) is a fallacy. It presumes that a natural state of being naturally endows people with all their rights, and that the arbitrary social systems that have evolved on top of that natural state have systematically deprived people of those rights. In some cases, this has happened, but it is not an inviolable law.
For example, in the "state of nature" women are born weaker than men, but that doesn't mean that men have a right to drag them back to the cave and do what they want with them.
> "Society has weighed the pros and cons and decided that this particular set of technologies is on the whole good. That it might in fact want to limit the level of anonymity on the network seems reasonable, in the same way that making people put license plates on their cars is reasonable."
"Society" is not a monolithic, homogeneous organism whose will is absolute and omniscient. Society is composed of many subcultures with differing ideologies that change over time. "Society" has not decided to "limit the level of anonmymity" on the internet; it is only some factions within it that believe that should be done. The worrying aspect is that these factions often promote it as a public good (using the same "societal consensus" language you have invoked) that only fringe groups like terrorists and pedophiles oppose. As long as indifferent factions (which most ordinary people fall into) are more swayed by this kind of fear mongering than by a desire to prevent the machinery of the destruction of their rights from being built, the minority faction that argues that privacy is unnecessary or even dangerous will exert a disproportionate level of control over our entire society.
> Using "natural states of being", however defined, to articulate rights in unnatural states of being (i.e. modern society) is a fallacy.
You're absolutely right, I'm muddling the concept of natural rights by doing that. (John Locke would be very disappointed.) The point I was trying to make was that many people do not realize that anonymity is something that society has to actually construct infrastructure for and support. To justify doing that, anonymity would either have to be deemed a "natural right" (something society considers every citizen is justly due, like in the US Bill of Rights) or the benefits and disadvantages must be weighed in every circumstance. I'm claiming that it is the latter and questioning why techno-libertarians usually assume the former. Then I'm raising that possibility that the calculus may just work out against allowing anonymity on some common communication mediums like the Internet.
As to your second point, yes, I agree that fear-mongering is unfortunately one of the many ways that minority viewpoints can hold sway over the public debate. I can't see much of a solution to it except time and a more robust democratic system, where you hope that eventually reason and the silent majority will prevail.
Using "natural states of being", however defined, to articulate rights in unnatural states of being (i.e. modern society) is a fallacy. It presumes that a natural state of being naturally endows people with all their rights, and that the arbitrary social systems that have evolved on top of that natural state have systematically deprived people of those rights. In some cases, this has happened, but it is not an inviolable law.
For example, in the "state of nature" women are born weaker than men, but that doesn't mean that men have a right to drag them back to the cave and do what they want with them.
> "Society has weighed the pros and cons and decided that this particular set of technologies is on the whole good. That it might in fact want to limit the level of anonymity on the network seems reasonable, in the same way that making people put license plates on their cars is reasonable."
"Society" is not a monolithic, homogeneous organism whose will is absolute and omniscient. Society is composed of many subcultures with differing ideologies that change over time. "Society" has not decided to "limit the level of anonmymity" on the internet; it is only some factions within it that believe that should be done. The worrying aspect is that these factions often promote it as a public good (using the same "societal consensus" language you have invoked) that only fringe groups like terrorists and pedophiles oppose. As long as indifferent factions (which most ordinary people fall into) are more swayed by this kind of fear mongering than by a desire to prevent the machinery of the destruction of their rights from being built, the minority faction that argues that privacy is unnecessary or even dangerous will exert a disproportionate level of control over our entire society.